CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.407 OF 2001
------
In the matter of an application under section 482 of
the code of Criminal Procedure.
——-
AJAY KUMAR son of late Sri Deonarayan Prasad
resident of Mohalla-Gosaibagh, Gaya, Dist.-Gaya
……. …….Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR …… …..Opp.Party
——-
For the petitioner : Dr.Arun Kumar-2
For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P.
——
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR
———
Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent
jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated
23.10.2000/4.11.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gaya in Civil Line P.S. case No.260 of 1992. By the said order,
the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under
sections 49(2)(G), 49(3)(A) and 49(3)(D) of the Bihar Finance
Act, 1981 and section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act and directed
to issue notice against the petitioner.
2. In this case learned counsel for the petitioner has
confined his argument on the point of delay in filing of the first
information report as well as passing of the order of cognizance
after expiry of period of limitation. In the present case first
information report was drawn on 27.10.1992 vide Gaya Civil Line
P.S. Case No.260 of 1992, annexure-2 to the petition, which
shows that period of occurrence was in between 1.1.1988 to
31.3.1989. After registering first information report, to the reasons
2
best known to the investigating officer, charge sheet was
submitted on 30.6.2000 i.e. after about eight years from the date of
registration of the first information report and, thereafter, the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order dated
23.10.2000/4.11.2000 took cognizance of the offence. Even order
of cognizance was passed after few months from the date of filing
of the charge sheet by the police. Against the order of cognizance,
the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition
which was admitted finally on 4.3.2002 and, while admitting the
petition, it was directed that pending final hearing, interim order
passed on 13.11.2001 shall remain operative and order of stay is
still continuing.
3. Obviously, in the present case even first
information report was lodged after the period of limitation as
prescribed under section 468(2)(C) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that for the offences alleged in the present case maximum
punishment prescribes under the Act is three years imprisonment
and, as such, period of limitation would be three years as
prescribed under section 468(2)( C) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. This section provides limitation of taking cognizance
of the offence. However, in the present case, first information
report itself was lodged after expiry of period of limitation and
order of cognizance was passed after eleven years from the date of
alleged occurrence. In view of the aforesaid fact, without going
into the merit of the case, this court is of the opinion that no
3
purpose would be served in directing the petitioner to participate
in the proceeding for the offences which had taken place about
twenty one years ago, that too, in a case where first information
report itself was lodged after the period of limitation for taking
cognizance. The court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for
exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
4. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated
23.10.200/4.11.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Gaya in Civil Line P.S. Case No.260 of 1992 is hereby set aside
and the petition stands allowed.
Patna High Court (Rakesh Kumar, J.) The 11th August,2010 Md.S./NAFR